Quote:
Originally Posted by buggyone
"fiction as this..."As to a fetus not being a part of a woman's body...that is just too far out to even give any credence to."
Katz's statement has me somewhat confused. She is saying that it is fiction to believe that a fetus is not part of a woman's body? Or is she saying it is fiction to believe a fetus is part of a woman's body.
A simple knowledge of biology knows that it is the woman's body where a fetus is formed and grows. If you do not have that woman's body, you cannot have a fetus - except for the petri dish conceptions and medical machines, etc. Of course, it is part of the woman's body.
|
An outrageous view, and a false premise. A baby is a distinct human being apart from his or her mother. Human beings shouldn't be discriminated against based on where they reside. A person's body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of the body.
An unborn baby's genetic code differs ENTIRELY with the mother's. It is not part of the woman's body. The fetus merely resides in the mother's womb.
The baby is a unique individual being and is not a physical part or organ of the mother.
THEREFORE, THE MOTHER'S "RIGHT" TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY ENDS AT THE EDGE OF THE WOMB. A mothers has the right to control the food she chooses to put into her body but she does not have the right to kill another distinct human life in her womb.
HUMAN BIOLOGY FACTS ARE NOT AN ABORTIONIST'S FRIEND.